Grimes v. Donald et. al. and DSC Communications Corporation
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHARLES L. GRIMES, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § § v. § § JAMES L. DONALD, CLEMENT M. § BROWN, JR., FRANK J. CUMMISKEY, § RAYMOND J. DEMPSEY, JOHN § FAIRCLOUGH, JAMES L. FISCHER, § ROBERT S. FOLSOM, JAMES P. § LEAKE, JAMES M. NOLAN, § JIM A. WATSON, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees, § § and § § DSC COMMUNICATIONS § CORPORATION, § § Nominal Defendant § Below, Appellee. § No. 3, 2001 Court Below: Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 13358 Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 26th day of October, 2001, on consideration of the briefs and arguments of the parties, it appears to the Court that: 1) This appeal involves an application for attorneys fees by Charles L. Grimes, a stockholder whose claims were mooted by a merger. The Court of Chancery dismissed the fee petition because it found no basis on which to infer that there was a causal connection between Grimes claims and the subsequent corporate actions that mooted those claims. On appeal, this Court concluded that the fee petition should not have been dismissed and that the corporate defendants had the burden of rebutting the inference, created by the sequence of events, that there was a causal connection.1 2) On remand, the Court of Chancery found that the corporate defendants rebutted the inference that Grimes litigation influenced James L. Donald s decision to retire as CEO and Chairman of DSC Communications Corporation. The Court of Chancery relied on the unrebutted affidavit of DSC s General Counsel, who stated that the Grimes litigation was not a factor and did not in any way cause Donald s departure. 3) Since the trial court s finding is supported by the record, we affirm its decision denying the application for attorneys fees without considering the court s other conclusions as to mootness or the merit of Grimes claims. 1 Grimes v. DSC Communications Corporation, Del. Supr., 2000 WL 949628. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
